Support NeoGAF

[RDreamer]

Well, not really, considering how bad things COULD have gotten.

I shudder to think that if McCain had gotten in, we would've likely gone with Europe's austerity bullshit.

We'd be in the 14 percent unemployment most likely, if not higher. And that's me being generous.

Sure, but it's also shitty compared to what we COULD do to lower it.

 

[fallagin]

This picture just seems ridiculous.

I like the juxtaposition of Washington's optimistic palm up and Boehner's palm down "NO".

Washington is asking for handouts.

 

[Snake]

Cool, I always thought Hank Hill deserved a monument.

 

[ISOM]

Sure, but it's also shitty compared to what we COULD do to lower it.

What we could do is what is possible politcally. We could have public option health care right now but that is not a political reality at the moment maybe a couple years from now but anyway saying "what could do" has to take into account the political realities of the time and situations involving any legislations.

 

[RDreamer]

What we could do is what is possible politcally. We could have public option health care right now but that is not a political reality at the moment maybe a couple years from now but anyway saying "what could do" has to take into account the political realities of the time and situations involving any legislations.

I realize this. I'm a very practical progressive in that way. I've defended Obamacare as it is, because of this. At the same time, I think we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking what we're doing is the best. We have to be honest about these things.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

It took me way too long to figure out what moronic thing this cartoon was trying to say.

When I first scanned over it I thought it was mocking all the Tea Party losers who got kicked back out after only one term of derpitude.

That's how I read it too.

By the way, where do you guys find these cartoons? I sometimes check NPR Double Take (the right wing ones are consistently awful), but that's all I know about.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation this morning, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) enthusiastically called for a government shut down:

SALMON: I was here during the government shutdown in 1995. It was a divided government. we had a Democrat [sic] President of the United States. We had a Republican Congress. And I believe that that government shutdown actually gave us the impetus, as we went forward, to push toward some real serious compromise. I think it drove Bill Clinton in a different direction, a very bipartisan direction. In fact, we passed welfare reform for the first time ever, and we cut the welfare ranks in the last decade and a half by over 50%. These are good things. We also balanced the budget for the first time in 40 years in 1997, 1998, 1999. And when I left we had an over $230 billion surplus. This was with a Democrat [sic] president, A Republican —
HOST: You think that’s a good idea?

SALMON: Yes, I do. I really do. I think it’s about time!

Who's ready for Republican shenanigans? Woo!

 

[CHEEZMO™]

That's how I read it too.

By the way, where do you guys find these cartoons? I sometimes check NPR Double Take (the right wing ones are consistently awful), but that's all I know about.

Something Awful's political cartoons thread. You probably shouldn't go there lest you want to break your mind trying to rationalise all the dumb shit you will see.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

Something Awful's political cartoons thread. You probably shouldn't go there lest you want to break your mind trying to rationalise all the dumb shit you will see.

What, SA or that specific thread?

 

[Particle Physicist]

Honestly that's still pretty shitty after so long...

Considering how obstructionist the GOP have been, I am surprised we are not still around 10 or higher.

 

[empty vessel]

And if the USA suddenly starts with the adoption of an unorthodox policy, it is just not going to work in practice even if it could work in theory (which is unproven).

Like when Nixon announced to the world that US dollars would no longer be convertible to gold upon demand. One day the private sector had debt instruments that could be converted into an amount of gold. The next day the private sector had a debt instrument that could be converted into nothing but the government's promise to extinguish tax liabilities. Real wealth was straight up confiscated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

The act was equivalent to (1) ordering every individual and business in the world to immediately relinquish to the US government all gold-backed US dollars in their possession; (2) printing the same amount of dollars as the amount confiscated in a new, non-convertible US dollar and giving each person the same amount as had been confiscated from them. (Of course, all it really did was dictate to every individual that the US government would not keep the promises it made about the debt instrument (US dollar) it had made, i.e., the most massive default in world history.)

What you really miss in all of this MMT stuff is that there is nothing radical about it. Indeed, it is exactly what we do already. We already have and use fiat money. We have been doing it for 50 years! Every single US dollar in existence, including those that are only represented by pixels on computer screens, are "printed" dollars--dollars created from nothing.

And your hang up with government deficits is simply not backed by any economic knowledge and does not take any account of the very function of money in an economy. It's based on some emotional belief about balance that has no real world implications when talking about a currency issuer. All that a balanced budget results in for a country like the US is more and more money leaving the private sector each year via the country's negative trade balance. This leads to recession, then depression. You don't need growth? How do you feel about outright decay, because that would be the result of your economic policy prescriptions. The US has a huge negative trade balance. Its currency-issuing government, as the only other counterparty to the domestic economy, must make up for that private sector deficit by running its own deficit vis-a-vis the domestic private sector (thereby balancing out the private sector's deficit with the foreign sector).

Study this:

 

[Mgoblue201]

When a Democrat only serves one term in Congress, he's inexperienced. When a Republican does it, he's the second coming of Lincoln.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

What, SA or that specific thread?

The thread.

 

[RDreamer]

Like when Nixon announced to the world that US dollars would no longer be convertible to gold upon demand. One day the private sector had debt instruments that could be converted into an amount of gold. The next day the private sector had a debt instrument that could be converted into nothing but the government's promise to extinguish tax liabilities. Real wealth was straight up confiscated.

This is the first thing that immediately comes to mind every time someone talks about this as a radical shift. I immediately think, "wait a minute... this is just further acknowledging the shift we already had."

Also, don't investors already kind of acknowledge that we can never run out of money and not pay our debts, etc? During the beginning of the recession didn't many put their money into the bonds of governments that had control of their own currency?

So, it seems to me that they acknowledge it, but still want us to not fully utilize it. And the debt just makes a bit marketing tool to get rid of things certain people don't want, so that's why they don't want us to really acknowledge it as a whole.

 

[B-Dubs]

As an aside to our discussion of monetary policy and Allen West running in 2016 (please do, I beg you please do) I present to you this little gem I just saw on twitter:

 

[speculawyer]

Like when Nixon announced to the world that US dollars would no longer be convertible to gold upon demand. One day the private sector had debt instruments that could be converted into an amount of gold. The next day the private sector had a debt instrument that could be converted into nothing but the government's promise to extinguish tax liabilities. Real wealth was straight up confiscated.

Look, I'm in total agreement with you that the gold standard was not viable system and it is good we got rid of it. It limits the money supply to the amount of physical gold and thus puts a crazy irrational limit onto economic growth based on an arbitrary supply of a particular physical element. That's crazy when the economy is more about wheat, ipads, gasoline, labor, etc.

What you really miss in all of this MMT stuff is that there is nothing radical about it. Indeed, it is exactly what we do already. We already have and use fiat money. We have been doing it for 50 years! Every single US dollar in existence, including those that are only represented by pixels on computer screens, are "printed" dollars--dollars created from nothing.

And again, I agree that we already have a fiat money system. We are just talking about the way it is managed. But we do not merely "print" money (or create it with pixels). We LEND MONEY INTO EXISTENCE. New dollars are created by economy growing and people being able to pay back those lent dollars due to the larger economy.

And your hang up with government deficits is simply not backed by any economic knowledge and does not take any account of the very function of money in an economy. It's based on some emotional belief about balance that has no real world implications when talking about a currency issuer.

No, that's just your dismissive caricature of my view.

Central-bank policy does matter. If you put to little money out there, you artificially choke off the economy with deflation. If you put too much money out there, you create bubbles that pop or worse, create too much inflation.

It is a very difficult balancing act and mistakes are inevitably made. The current system is flawed but has worked reasonably well. Going to to some untested could just make things worse. Especially since much of economics is based on psychology & trust.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Didn't Obama create 4 million jobs since he took over? What's there to suggest that he can't create equal, if not more in his second term, assuming the current job creation rate continues? Republicans tried every trick in their book and then some to stop or stifle job creation in US in order to make Obama one term president, even downgrading our credit rating. Jobs are still being created. Another 4-5 million jobs will put us in low 6 UE rate.

Isn't the CBO projecting we won't reach that rate for another 6-8 years?

 

[jamesinclair]

"The tax issue is finished. Over. Completed," McConnell told me on "This Week." "That's behind us. Now the question is what are we going to do about the biggest problem confronting our country and that's our spending addiction.

"We didn't have this problem because we weren't taxing enough," McConnell added.

He blamed Obama and Democrats for waiting to resolve budget issues until the last minute.


"Why we end up in these last-minute discussions is beyond me. We need to function," McConnell said. "I mean, the House of Representatives, for example, passed a budget every year. They've passed appropriation bills.

"The Senate Democratic majority and the president seem to like these last-minute deals."

http://news.yahoo.com/sen-mitch-mcconnell-tax-issue-finished-151934787--abc-news-politics.html

I fucking hate the turtle

 

[B-Dubs]

Isn't the CBO projecting we won't reach that rate for another 6-8 years?

Everything I've heard says we'll hit 12mil or so if we don't fuck up the sequester.

 

[Diablos]

Am I the only one sometimes hoping that Biden runs and wins in 2016 instead of Hillary? Dude is a boss...

 

[wsoxfan1214]

Am I the only one sometimes hoping that Biden runs and wins in 2016 instead of Hillary? Dude is a boss...

I really wouldn't want the guy as our president, as much as I like him.

 

[Diablos]

I really wouldn't want the guy as our president, as much as I like him.

He'd also be like 74.

Kind of wishing he ran in 2004. I think he would've kicked Bush's ass.

 

[TacticalFox88]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hjres17

Oh, man, the conspiracy theories are going to go WILD with this proposal.

 

[FyreWulff]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hjres17

Oh, man, the conspiracy theories are going to go WILD with this proposal.

It happens every presidency and is proposed by someone in the president's party. It's basically a legislative NO OP

 

[TacticalFox88]

Am I the only one sometimes hoping that Biden runs and wins in 2016 instead of Hillary? Dude is a boss...

As much as I would, but I think Hillary would finish off the GOP that fractured under Obama.

Appointing two liberal justices would put the final nail in the coffin of Conservatives using the Supreme Court to try and push their agenda.

 

[The Librarian]

As much as I would, but I think Hillary would finish off the GOP that fractured under Obama.

Appointing two liberal justices would put the final nail in the coffin of Conservatives using the Supreme Court to try and push their agenda.

Shit will be too late for the VRA. I know the VRA and gay marriage are coming before SCOTUS, and, honestly, if I had to choose for a bad ruling between the two, it'd be gay marriage every time.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Shit will be too late for the VRA. I know the VRA and gay marriage are coming before SCOTUS, and, honestly, if I had to choose for a bad ruling between the two, it'd be gay marriage every time.

I think we may be surprised.

Roberts, above all else, wants his legacy to be on the right side of history. Which is the primary reason he didn't strike PPACA down.

If Roberts sees the country moving towards marriage equality (which it unquestionably is), then I have no doubt he'll strike DOMA down.

 

[fallagin]

Shit will be too late for the VRA. I know the VRA and gay marriage are coming before SCOTUS, and, honestly, if I had to choose for a bad ruling between the two, it'd be gay marriage every time.

What is VRA?

 

[TacticalFox88]

What is VRA?

Voting Rights Act

 

[Gotchaye]

And your hang up with government deficits is simply not backed by any economic knowledge and does not take any account of the very function of money in an economy. It's based on some emotional belief about balance that has no real world implications when talking about a currency issuer. All that a balanced budget results in for a country like the US is more and more money leaving the private sector each year via the country's negative trade balance. This leads to recession, then depression. You don't need growth? How do you feel about outright decay, because that would be the result of your economic policy prescriptions. The US has a huge negative trade balance. Its currency-issuing government, as the only other counterparty to the domestic economy, must make up for that private sector deficit by running its own deficit vis-a-vis the domestic private sector (thereby balancing out the private sector's deficit with the foreign sector).

Study this:

I'm not following this. The government isn't the only institution that creates money. Loans within the private sector create money in much the way that government borrowing via bonds does. And a huge negative trade balance isn't a fact of nature.

A large negative trade balance doesn't mean that either the government takes on a lot of debt or the economy shrinks. It can result in one of those things, but "the government takes on a lot of debt" is just one way in which the USA can collectively have more debt. Private borrowing can also maintain a large negative trade balance - even private borrowing within the domestic private sector (because this creates money). In fact, this is basically what we were doing for a while, with a large percentage of Americans taking on more and more debt every year. And even the financial crisis was less a result of the existence of all this private debt and more the result of the financial sector's gross mismanagement of it. Edit: To clarify, there was too much debt, but the reason there was too much debt is that the financial sector failed to properly value it and too many risky loans were made. Interest rates were lower than they should have been, basically, because the banks were being stupid, and this is what enabled the private sector as a whole to take on so much debt.

A country's trade balance is largely a product of the relative strength of its currency. A negative trade balance doesn't mean that China (or whoever) is sucking wealth out of the US and we can't stop that. It's our borrowing that largely maintains the negative trade balance; China buys up US bonds just so as to keep the dollar relatively strong and promote Chinese exports. One of the major effects of borrowing much less (not just government borrowing, but also private borrowing) would be the weakening of the dollar against the yuan and the eventual equilibration of our trade balance.

All that said, I absolutely think that now is the wrong time to talk about deficit reduction. But I'm not willing to say that a good baseline level of deficit spending, even in a healthier economy, is our trade balance. It's partly wrong, because private borrowing counts too, and partly circular, because borrowing is what makes the trade balance possible. I think a policy like what you seem to suggest here would be extremely inflationary.

 

[fallagin]

Voting Rights Act

Ah, I see.

 

[Diablos]

Preparing for the worst for both the VRA and gay marriage.

 

[The Librarian]

I think we may be surprised.

Roberts, above all else, wants his legacy to be on the right side of history. Which is the primary reason he didn't strike PPACA down.

If Roberts sees the country moving towards marriage equality (which it unquestionably is), then I have no doubt he'll strike DOMA down.

I think you misunderstood my post. I know it's not an either-or, but I'd rather live in a universe where SCOTUS left in place DOMA/whatever than in one where it strikes down the VRA. Gay marriage is going to come on its own, no matter what the ruling (it's not going to rule gay marriage unconstitutional), and it's coming fast. Making the stupid decision of overturning the VRA might set back federal authority for decades. Of course, the optimal scenario is a good ruling on gay marriage and the VRA.

Remember the game Roberts is playing here: Make SCOTUS seem like it's not playing politics or being ideological, when in fact it is. If he rules in favor of gay marriage that just gives him more cover for a bad ruling on the VRA, which is what I think he cares more about.

 

[Amir0x]

I'm pretty sure we'll get better results for gay marriage than we would for VRA.

For the gay marriage cases (putting aside for a moment that the issues being brought to the court are a little more nuanced that simply saying 'gay marriage is right [or wrong]') it's the kind of thing a Justice Kennedy would break for, and maybe even potentially a Roberts if he sees where the consensus is going. With VRA, it's got a bigger climb with the current make up.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Why is the VRA even being questioned, anyhow?

It was passed 48 years ago, FFS.

 

[The Librarian]

Because that's the game he's playing. Take a few modest step back on some issues in order to take a giant leap forward on another issue.

 

[The Librarian]

I wonder how much money Mitch McConnell's shell costs. How much does it take to repair it? Maintain it? Does he take it off at night or does he sleep in it?

 

[B-Dubs]

I wonder how much money Mitch McConnell's shell costs. How much does it take to repair it? Maintain it? Does he take it off at night or does he sleep in it?

The real question is how does he poop? Is there a space toilet in there or does he need to take it off? What if he's got an emergency or food poisoning?

 

[Giant Panda]

Why is the VRA even being questioned, anyhow?

It was passed 48 years ago, FFS.

Well, how compelling government interest is for a certain issue can change over time. The SC has let the government get away with not following the constituition if they feel they have a really good reason too. That's not to say that's the right call for the voting rights act though.

 

[The Librarian]

I think Mitch McConnell's shell protects him from a primary challenge.

 

[kehs]

Bernie Sanders disagrees

 

[Diablos]

Bernie Sanders disagrees

It's really scary and depressing that this kind of thinking does not dominate the electorate outside of the heavily populated areas/more liberal states.

What the fuck is so terrible about putting society ahead of entities that only exist to turn a profit? I will never fully understand why so many poor people think this is such a bad idea.

 

[jamesinclair]

It's really scary and depressing that this kind of thinking does not dominate the electorate outside of the heavily populated areas/more liberal states.

What the fuck is so terrible about putting society ahead of entities that only exist to turn a profit? I will never fully understand why so many poor people think this is such a bad idea.

Vermont is heavily populated?

 

[Diablos]

Vermont is heavily populated?

I said more heavily populated areas/more liberal states. Thanks for not reading my entire post and just assuming I'm a fucking idiot.

 

[The Librarian]

Vermont is heavily populated?

Vermont is such an amazing state, even in its historical "Did you know?" political facts.

-Patrick Leahy is the ONLY Democratic senator ever elected in the history of the state.
-Vermont voted Republican in every presidential election since the party's founding, except LBJ's 1964 landslide, until Bill Clinton won it in 1992. That's about 130 years of the same voting pattern. Over 100 for the first part - then LBJ - then twenty-eight years more.

 

[RDreamer]

It's really scary and depressing that this kind of thinking does not dominate the electorate outside of the heavily populated areas/more liberal states.

What the fuck is so terrible about putting society ahead of entities that only exist to turn a profit? I will never fully understand why so many poor people think this is such a bad idea.

It is strange. His plan is very reasonable

First, if we simply repealed the Bush tax breaks for the top two percent, we could raise at least $700 billion over the next decade. The Republicans claim that repealing these tax breaks would increase unemployment. They are wrong. These tax breaks have been in place for over a decade and they have not led to a single net private sector job. In fact, under the eight years of President Bush, the private sector lost over 600,000 jobs and the deficit exploded. When President Clinton increased taxes on the top two percent, over 22 million jobs were created, and the revenue generated from this policy led to a $236 billion budget surplus.

Secondly, a 5.4 percent surtax on millionaires and billionaires would raise more than $383 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Tax Committee. As I said earlier, a millionaire's surtax has the support of 81 percent of the American people according to NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.

Third, Mr. President, the U.S. government is actually rewarding companies that move U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas through loopholes in the tax code known as deferral and foreign source income. This is unacceptable. During the last decade, the U.S. lost about 30% of its manufacturing jobs and over 50,000 factories have been shut down.

If we ended the absurdity of providing tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, the Joint Tax Committee has estimated that we could raise more than $582 billion in revenue over the next ten years. Right now we have a tax policy that says that if you shut down a manufacturing plant in America, and move to China, the IRS will give you a tax break. That may make sense to corporate CEOs. It doesn't make sense to me.

Fourth, Mr. President, if we ended tax breaks and subsidies for big oil and gas companies, we could reduce the deficit by more than $40 billion over the next ten years. The five largest oil companies in the United States have earned about $1 trillion in profits over the past decade. Meanwhile, in recent years, some of the very largest oil companies in America like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, as I pointed out earlier, have paid absolutely nothing in Federal income taxes. In fact, some of them have actually gotten a rebate from the IRS. That has got to stop.

Fifth, Mr. President, if we prohibited abusive and illegal offshore tax shelters, we could reduce the deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next decade. Each and every year, the United States loses an estimated $100 billion in tax revenues due to offshore tax abuses by the wealthy and large corporations. The situation has become so absurd that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is now the "home" to more than 18,000 corporations. That is wrong. The wealthy and large corporations should not be allowed to avoid paying taxes by setting up tax shelters in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Bahamas or other tax haven countries.

Sixth, Mr. President, if we established a Wall Street speculation fee of less than one percent on the sale and purchase of credit default swaps, derivatives, stock options and futures, we could reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next decade. Both the economic crisis and the deficit crisis are a direct result of the greed and recklessness on Wall Street. Establishing a speculation fee would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy, and significantly reduce the deficit without harming average Americans.

There are a number of precedents for this. The U.S had a similar Wall Street speculation fee from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 levied a 0.2% tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled that tax to help finance the government during the Great Depression. And today, England has a financial transaction tax of 0.25 percent, a penny on every $4 invested.

Number seven, Mr. President, if we taxed capital gains and dividends, the same way that we tax work, we could raise more than $730 billion over the next decade. Warren Buffet has often said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. And, today the effective tax rate of the richest 400 Americans, who earn an average of more than $280 million each year, is just 18 percent, lower than most nurses, teachers, firefighters, and police officers pay. The reason for this is that the wealthy obtain most of their income from capital gains and dividends, which is taxed at a much lower rate than work. Right now, the top marginal income tax for working is 35%, but the tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 15%. Taxing wealth and work at the same rate could raise more than $730 billion over a ten-year period - and it's the right thing to do.

Number eight, if we established a progressive estate tax on inherited wealth of more than $3.5 million, we could raise more than $70 billion over 10 years. Last year, I introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act that would reduce the deficit in a fair way while ensuring that 99.7 percent of Americans who lose a loved one would never have to pay a dime in federal estate taxes.

Number nine, we have got to reduce unnecessary and wasteful spending at the Pentagon, which now consumes over half of our discretionary budget. Since 1997, our defense budget has virtually tripled going from $254 billion to $700 billion.

Defense experts such as Lawrence Korb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, has estimated that we could achieve significant savings of around $100 billion a year at the Pentagon while still ensuring that the United States has the strongest and most powerful military in the world.

For example, as a result of four separate investigations that I requested, the GAO has found that the Pentagon has $36.9 billion in spare parts that it does not need and which are collecting dust in government warehouses. We have got to do a much better job than that.

And, much of the huge spending at the Pentagon is devoted to spending money on Cold War weapons programs to fight a Soviet Union that no longer exists. That has got to stop.

Further, we also must end the unnecessary War in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan as soon as possible. These wars have gone on long enough. Reducing Pentagon spending by at least $900 billion over 10 years is something that we can and must do.

Number 10, if we required Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, we could save over $157 billion over 10 years. As a result of the Medicare Part D prescription drug legislation signed into law under President George W. Bush, Medicare is prohibited from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to lower drug prices for seniors. This is wrong. Requiring Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices could save the federal government and seniors over $15 billion a year.

Number 11, if we enacted a robust public option or a Medicare-for-all health insurance program, we would be able to save more than $68 billion over the next decade and provide affordable health insurance coverage for millions of Americans.

Number 12, Mr. President, as almost everyone knows, China is manipulating its currency, giving it an unfair trade advantage over the United States and destroying decent paying manufacturing jobs in the process. If we imposed a currency manipulation fee on China and other low wage countries, the Economic Policy Institute has estimated that we could raise $500 billion over 10 years and create 1 million jobs in the process.

Finally, Mr. President, I think just about everyone agrees that there is waste, fraud, and abuse in every agency of the federal government. Rooting out this waste, fraud, and abuse could save about $200 billion over the next 10 years.

Mr. President, if we did all of these things we could easily reduce the deficit by well over $4 trillion over the next decade, if not much more. It would be done in a fair way, and it would not unnecessarily and needlessly ruin the lives of millions of Americans who are struggling desperately just to make ends meet.

I mean, I guess if you're a rich person you'll see less money, and you can be a bit angry at that, but seriously this stuff isn't really that far out there.

 

[Giant Panda]

It's really scary and depressing that this kind of thinking does not dominate the electorate outside of the heavily populated areas/more liberal states.

What the fuck is so terrible about putting society ahead of entities that only exist to turn a profit? I will never fully understand why so many poor people think this is such a bad idea.

The way you word this is really bad messaging. These "entities that only exist to turn a profit" are a major factor of what enables our society to be successful, while this sort of wording makes it sound as if businesses have no benefits for society. A major theme I've noticed in these PoliGaf threads is a little more business bashing than is really necessary.

 

[RDreamer]

Wait just a fucking second... Jon Huntsman used to play in a prog rock band in the 70s?

That's awesome, and now I think even higher of him. Bummer about the Paul Ryan plan endorsement crap, lol

 

[KtSlime]

The way you word this is really bad messaging. These "entities that only exist to turn a profit" are a major factor of what enables our society to be successful, while this sort of wording makes it sound as if businesses have no benefits for society. A major theme I've noticed in these PoliGaf threads is a little more business bashing than is really necessary.

Businesses only exist to benefit us. If they are not doing that, they should no longer be permitted to exist. This is not bashing, this is reality.

 

[RDreamer]

Businesses only exist to benefit us. If they are not doing that, they should no longer be permitted to exist. This is not bashing, this is reality.

It doesn't even need to go that far. We could and should tweak them until they do benefit us. But yes, if that becomes impossible, then obviously they shouldn't exist. I don't think we're there yet.

Still, the notion should be that they're tools to benefit society. When a tool no longer benefits you, you don't use it anymore.